wut.
My life is ruined *cries*
Actually, a lot of them wouldn't change at all because there are still vacancies in many of them (probably 50% of courses or so). As for the others, I don't think it'd be dramatic as you think but I think that it's good that cut-offs go up. Don't forget, everyone gets bonuses - not just the ones at the bottom.
It costs a ton of time and money to interview all lower band applicants. Interviews only exist for schools with a very low acceptance rate (eg ivy's/oxbridge) where only 5-10% of applicants are accepted. Remember those schools have TONS of academically qualified students, they have the luxury to pick and choose the cream of the crop. If the lower band students don't qualify just give them an offer to foundation studies. NYU does the same thing with their "liberal arts" program where they send students to europe or abu dabi for a year and then transfer back into the main campus if their marks are good enough.
You know I've always had a little soft spot for UPenn and none of the other more popular ivys ever made me a little interested
Seeing the type of questions they ask at scholarship interviews and stuff, they would be great differentiators for the lower band applicants if it was unfeasible to interview everyone, (have a clearly in criteria and than an eligible for further consideration thing kinda like flexi-entry perhaps?)
Eaxctly, at the moment they are just artificially increasing cut offs. Cut offs would drop across the board yet make almost no difference initially if only subject bonus points were removed. But if EAS and other bonus point schemes (AAA) were either replaced or regulated they would be pushed up a little.
At Notre Dame, they do interviews for all degrees which I think are aimed at identifying those who underperform but have the potential to do well at uni. However, I get the distinct feeling that they are just a formality.
Doesn't say what degree they did, I would say the bulk of those that are unemployed did useless Arts degrees that have no relevant jobs in the workforce
It's a first year Chemistry 1A course, the cohort would be very large so they can't fail a shitload of people or there will be too many people doing the course in the subsequent year, Chemistry 1A is really easy, the high non-failure rate is not surprising, it's also a first year course which are generally easy. The harder courses in later courses have a lot higher failure rates and the shit students usually give up at that point. Also this is a UNSW thread not a USYD thread and we don't have such mediocre standards in our subjects.
then you just defeated the whole point of universities. humanities has always been the core focus of universities. So what if someone wants to study English lit or History if they love it? Sure they might not get a job in their field (70% of uni students don't anyway). I highly doubt its "lol bachelor of attendance" and employers throw away their application, it's more to do with what marks they got during uni. There's a lot of people who are happy with just credits and passes. Besides, economy is not so great for new graduates anyway. Funny thing is Arts is currently "in demand" because there aren't that many taking them (look at the HECS cost).
Yeah that's what I mean about EAS having flaws in the system.
It's also a common problem with special provisions/considerations as well - those who know how to play the system can get away with some pretty questionable stuff. On the other hand, I know a few people with legitimate problems who didnt get anything because they didnt know how the system worked.